The decision to put a strong female at the helm of the show came in response to audience feedback.

“We were really ahead of the curve in that sense,” Zapcic said.

Feminism has always been about theater, so the fact that feminists are crowing about this latest landmark achievement for women shouldn’t come as a complete surprise. Yet even the breathy NY Times article about this great feminist triumph was forced to acknowledge that the audience mostly didn’t care:

“If it can help empower women and we can be role models for these young women and men and show you need to respect women, then it is very fortuitous timing,” Ms. Lerner said. “It gives you the chills.”

…questions about the social significance of the new show were largely met with blank stares.

One Australian tourist allowed that it was a clever idea, but many audience members said they had no inkling — or didn’t care — that the show had changed.

This is something feminists should get used to. They’ve marked off all of their top and medium priorities on their “To Do” list. In the past feminists could give a woman a mannish haircut, put a leather jacket on her, and have a man fly her across the Atlantic and she would be celebrated as a great feminist hero, complete with ticker tape parade and solemn meeting with the President. Now all of the great play acting roles have been done before. The first woman to play the lead role in a local dinner show just isn’t exciting anymore.

Feminism used to be great theater. Sure it was make believe, but it was make believe on a grand scale. Now it is reduced to reminding paper-hat-wearing grown men and women not to forget to tip the wait staff.

139 Responses to A brave new world.

From the New York Times article, speaking about a certain Mr. John Freeman:
‘His wife, Stacey Freeman, 34, thought the queen freshened things up. “In my everyday life, I don’t see that I’m treated any different than a man,” she said, “but I know it happens.”’

The world is run by unicorns. I’ve never seen a single one, but I know they’re everywhere.

At first I chuckled, but upon reflection: This could be taken as the cheeriest way ever to say that the Jezebel coup is nearly complete and most men just don’t care. I agree it’s theater, but that matters here in Neverland.

At first I chuckled, but upon reflection: This could be taken as the cheeriest way ever to say that the Jezebel coup is nearly complete and most men just don’t care. I agree it’s theater, but that matters here in Neverland.

Right. But we already knew that men had ceded everything. It is like Napoleon winning a battle to take over a small farmhouse in Russia after the Russians already ceded everything up to and including Moscow. Yes, Napoleon devastated huge parts of Russia, but in the end he still didn’t get what he wanted.

From the feminist point of view the goal is to “put the shoe on the other foot”. They want men to burn with envy when we see the actress on the throne, just like they burn with envy when they see a man there. But men aren’t like women. When we see something taken over by women we don’t burn with desire to get in and mark the space as masculine. We see it as a feminine space and move out.

Yes yes….everything is now a “major victory” for women, and girls. Virtue signaling. Groundbreaking. Hostoric. Everything is so amazing, and breaking barriers that real barriers actually get more entrenched deeper (like the piss poor choices women make when deciding to get horizontal with a guy for instance).

When ever I hear the shop-worn phrase “did you know that in the USA for over twenty years….women are ones who make the important spending decisions for the family?”

I always reply……”hence why our national debt his exploded beyond anything Reagan could have ever fathomed…..hence why every “family” is mired ear deep in credit card debt, student loan ddebt, car loans, and over priced housing, hence why local governements are cash strapped and broke. Yes, women make the important spending decisions, and we have the results of this…but men somehow afre supposed to fix it.”

International Women’s Day- Celebrated by socialists and in Communist countries until adopted internationally by the UN in 1975. New world order under communism was taking baby steps back then. Communism killed more people than any other political movement in history. Most know feminism is communism in a skirt.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Women%27s_Day

I’d always thought of myself as a feminist, well-versed in women’s history. But I discovered my knowledge of it was more limited than I realized when I met Laura Liswood in 2015.

As secretary general of the Council of Women World Leaders, Liswood has convened elected female presidents and prime ministers for the United Nations for the past 20 years. Very intrigued, I asked her how many female presidents and prime ministers there had been throughout the world.

I could only count a few on one hand: German Chancellor Angela Merkel, British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and pioneering women leaders who made headlines when I was a kid, such as Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir. I guessed 15.

It turns out that as of 2015, there were more than 50 living women who had served or were currently serving as presidents or prime ministers throughout the world. Today, there are 70. Were other women and men as in the dark as me? I asked dozens of people — professionals, academics and leaders of women’s organizations — and quickly discovered I was not alone. Most people estimated there had been five or six female leaders.

How could there be such a gap between our thinking and reality? …

So while there are many “women world leaders” — indeed, they even have their own Council of Women World Leaders — they must still labor under the oppression of people not knowing that there are many “women world leaders.”

Rather than treat the high number of “women world leaders” as a victory, feminists seek reasons to complain about it.

I hate to say it…but this is what the serpent tried to do the first time…it makes more sense to go this route than class warfare. It’ll lose in the end like it always does…but not without loads of damage and harm first.

They want men to burn with envy when we see the actress on the throne, just like they burn with envy when they see a man there. But men aren’t like women. When we see something taken over by women we don’t burn with desire to get in and mark the space as masculine. We see it as a feminine space and move out.

That’s true and well-said. I got that gist from the post, too. I suppose mentally I just moved on from there to reflect on the fact that men put up no offense or defense against women’s onslaught, and that bugs the fire out of me. To reference one of you other great posts: I am petty enough to be angry at women’s pettiness.

It turns out that as of 2015, there were more than 50 living women who had served or were currently serving as presidents or prime ministers throughout the world. Today, there are 70. Were other women and men as in the dark as me? I asked dozens of people — professionals, academics and leaders of women’s organizations — and quickly discovered I was not alone. Most people estimated there had been five or six female leaders.

It works well for them Earl because they don’t see it better here compared with what communism would give them. That’s not because of ignorance, but because they really don’t value freedom or goodness. They are so focused on their own emotions, that a pig pen is the same as a house, thus, the need for them to be firmly led. They don’t civilize us like has been said many times on this blog. You are redpill, yet it’s still difficult for you to fathom the depths of American Christian depravity. Recall the proverb that a foolish women tears her house down. Christian women are happier homeless if they are self-pleased than being given a mansion but under submission.

Clare Boothe Luce (someone worth remembering) told Pres. Kennedy that presidents ultimately merit only one sentence in the history books, “And yours will be that you stopped the Communists, or that you did not”. Since 1914, there has been arguably one female head of state in Europe of much significance outside her own country, and two chief executives. One (hag-chancellor Merkel) is nothing about which to write home. The other two (Queen Elizabeth and Margaret Thatcher) are the sort about which the people yammering about women-in-office care nothing.

“Now all of the great play acting roles have been done before. The first woman to play the lead role in a local dinner show just isn’t exciting anymore.”

Like locust or a plague, they will consume everything and anything that even hints of masculine pride to the point where man won’t even be allowed to go MGTOW. Compliance with their agenda will be mandatory or way or another.

Before someone says “they can’t possibly do that!” just look at our society today and how they’re now making it a crime in some countries to not use a person’s “preferred” pronoun. You think they care about your liberty or rights?

I suppose mentally I just moved on from there to reflect on the fact that men put up no offense or defense against women’s onslaught, and that bugs the fire out of me. To reference one of you other great posts: I am petty enough to be angry at women’s pettiness.

It is certainly nothing to brag about. We gave all of the territory up, and unlike the analogy I made regarding Russia, don’t have an army left to show for it.

Feminists will fail not because they were opposed, but because what they always wanted they never could have.

“If it can help empower women and we can be role models for these young women and men and show you need to respect women, then it is very fortuitous timing,” Ms. Lerner said. “It gives you the chills.”

Funny enough, feminism is what caused me to lose respect for women. The blatant hypocrisy mixed with entitlement. Give women total freedom to be as irresponsible as they want but never blame them if they incur negative consequences. Don’t hold them accountable for anything… But still consider them to be out equals? Only a child would talk like that, and we don’t let children make our laws for a reason.

And then they want us to respect women because of a theatre play. Telling. Couldn’t they find a real life woman who did something to earn my respect?

I do respect women though. With the same respect I afford to hobos. They are valid human beings with feelings and ideas. But we are not equal. No way. Man is the head of the woman. Period.

It can be tiresome to have to actually go off and do things such that one falls behind on his Dalrock readings. Luckily I once took that speed reading course so I’ve almost caught up.

Speaking of feminist triumphs on the “To Do” list and the law of diminishing returns as medieval history has been modified to accommodate women, I saw an item of interest in a local South Carolina newspaper last week.

An 18 year old Clemson Co-Ed (fairly impressive in looks by the photo) had been partying with the usual frat boy suspects and decided to have sex with, I suppose, the best one she could get. Following the traditional pattern she later decided she had been sexually assaulted and filed charges on the man to that effect. Where it gets interesting is that local police actually investigated the matter, and found her story so radically different from witness accounts that it was eventually she that was charged with false report of a felony, itself a felony charge. The man was exonerated.

“If it can help empower women and we can be role models for these young women and men and show you need to respect women, then it is very fortuitous timing,” Ms. Lerner said. “It gives you the chills.”

Is it possible that, given the fact that now a woman “breaking ground” is so unremarkable that the whole of feminism will start to die off simply because it no longer holds the same excitement that it once did for women? Whereas before it would cause a ruckus for a woman to try and break into “men’s spaces”, now its so commonplace that no one cares and so it just doesn’t seem to be a thing much anymore, kind of like an old boyfriend with whom a girl has lost her flame with. Maybe not “die off” so much as become of less interest to women because it wont garner them as much attention as it did before they broke into men’s spaces?

SnapperTrxIs it possible that, given the fact that now a woman “breaking ground” is so unremarkable that the whole of feminism will start to die off simply because it no longer holds the same excitement that it once did for women?

That would require women as a group to be content with what they have obtained…

So the answer is “nope” or maybe “no time soon” for the more optimistic.

“Is it possible that, given the fact that now a woman “breaking ground” is so unremarkable that the whole of feminism will start to die off simply because it no longer holds the same excitement that it once did for women?”

No, because their entire religion is rooted in fighting the patriarchy. It is a perpetual state of revolution. They will always find something to complain about.

OP — “If it can help empower women and we can be role models for these young women and men and show you need to respect women, then it is very fortuitous timing,” Ms. Lerner said. “It gives you the chills.”

Note that under the current Demonic Dispensation of the western world, women and girls are due automatic ‘respect’ for the astonishing accomplishment of . . . being born female.

As a male, you are not merely excluded from automatic respect by Ms. Lerner, her western governments, and related fellow-travelers. Instead, you will be automatically *disrespected* for your sin of masculinity.

The ‘conservatives’ are just as much on-board with this as the tyrant-left. You WILL respect (i.e., obey) all females, or else. Ms. Lerner: “you need to show respect ” to females, or else.

Tyranny, wrapped up with a shiny pink bow, safely cocooned in a spider-web of cultural assumptions and governmental ‘laws’.

Yeah, Ms. Lerner, it gives me ‘the chills’ all right. Just like you.

Also, loved the ‘fortuitous timing’ scam. As if their little Politburo Theater just spontaneously appeared, rather than having been carefully planned and publicized by these monsters.

Snapper TRX,
I think some of the female forces would lose interest in the fight, but deadly gains have already been made, and the true believers, profs and teachers, are always working hard.
An ally, Theyard, is a good example of the terrible gains made. He likes this site, but then misses the comparison between he and Carlson/Steyn. He is good with the status quo of girl wrestlers and powerlifters because the programs are established and some good comes of them. And that mental mush is from a friend, not a foe. So even if some women back off, there is so much damage left.

Just as other European countries have quota where the government by law dictates to 30-40% of top functions in companies should be women, a couple of days ago the Dutch government announced (by the minister of Emancipation, yes, that’s a full department) it would follow suit.
If companies would not adhere to these numbers, laws will be made to force them.

The same minister appeared today in the news, because she was SHOCKED and APPALLED, that a large company decided to NOT install another female top manager, because the company already had a full female board of directors, and they therefore wanted to appoint a man.

These facts clearly show this is NOT about equality at all, this is about REPLACING men.
It also shows the Orwellian approach to it, even in the highest government circles.
There true motives cannot stay hidden. It is nauseating, and chilling to see that NOBODY seems to want to oppose feminism.

“We gave all of the territory up, and unlike the analogy I made regarding Russia, don’t have an army left to show for it.”

neither did napoleon. his army was decimated. i hope the lesson to current times is evident.

“The Russian victory over the French army in 1812 was a significant blow to Napoleon’s ambitions of European dominance. This war was the reason the other coalition allies triumphed once and for all over Napoleon. His army was shattered and morale was low, both for French troops still in Russia, fighting battles just before the campaign ended and for the troops on other fronts. Out of an original force of 615,000, only 110,000 frostbitten and half starved survivors stumbled back into France.[115] The Russian campaign was decisive for the Napoleonic Wars and led to Napoleon’s defeat and exile on the island of Elba.”

Having a “strong female lead” in something doesn’t give me the chills.
Many movies have roles written for men, but women are cast in them. That forgettable Star Wars stand-alone leaps out, from memory.
The problem is that the roles aren’t designed for women so they don’t work right with women in them.
No chills at all.
It just gives me the shits.

Lol. Sorry feminists, it’s not a feminist victory to have a female as the non-participating figurehead. As both a horseman and historical swordsman, I have really enjoyed my visits to various Medieval Times . The horsemanship is often quite good (the swordsmanship less so, but it’s just stage combat, so I’m not really disappointed). The guys out on the horses are doing the demanding, skilled job. Being the smile-and-wave queen is hardly a position of professional prestige.

Also, each of the knights in the show picks some young girl out of the audience as his “lady” and the lady of the winning knight is named the “queen of love and beauty” or something like that. All good fun (my middle daughter was one such, once. She was very excited an embarrassed. I think she was about 12 at the time). Will they still be doing that if there’s already a queen?

The problem with that is that the knight job has an element of real-world danger, and women don’t really flock to dangerous jobs. Riding two horses in synchronized side-passes while swinging blunt steel swords at each others’ heads has an inherent “oops” factor. I’d wager there are countless injuries in rehearsals.

It is curious that whereas one might suppose that Feminazis would idolize Margaret Thatcher or point to her former boss as an example of female empowerment, they don’t. They have no love for Theresa May(hem) either yet these three women surely have achieved the feminist dream. Oddly, it seems to be men who idolize female leaders and in a way that they would never idolize a male leader.

This can hardly be called “victory” by feminists. Why isn’t the queen topless with “Queen Slut” written in blood across her chest? Why aren’t the knights dressed like they’re in a gay pride parade? Has the meal changed to something more compatible with a spirit cooking dinner? Most importantly of all: will the queen get an abortion in that awkward pause after the main course but before dessert is served?

As ray mentioned above: “Tyranny, wrapped up with a shiny pink bow”. Notice the wording Ms Lerner uses: “you need to respect women…” Not you might want to, or you would find it beneficial to, but you need to. Many many feminist articles are written with this language of authority right in the headline and strewn all over the body of the article. And I think this is especially effective in indoctrinating women (and weak men and children) since they respond submissively to authority.

"A feminist in the strict and proper sense may be defined as a woman who envies the male role.

By the male role I mean, in the first place, providing, protecting, and guiding rather than nurturing and assisting. This in turn involves relative independence, action, and competition in the larger impersonal society outside the family, the use of language for communication and analysis (rather than expressiveness or emotional manipulation), and deliberate behavior aiming at objective achievement (rather than the attainment of pleasant subjective states) and guided by practical reasoning (rather than emotional impulse).

Both feminist and nonfeminist women sense that these characteristically male attributes have a natural primacy over their own. I prefer to speak of "primacy" rather than superiority in this context since both sets of traits are necessary to propagate the race. One sign of male primacy is that envy of the female role by men is virtually nonexistent — even, so far as I know, among homosexuals.

Normal women are attracted to male traits and wish to partner with a man who possesses them. Healthy societies are marked by a cooperative reciprocity between the sexes, but an unequal one in the sense that it involves male leadership of the female, somewhat as in ballroom dancing.

The feminists' response to the primacy of male traits, on the other hand, is a feeling of inadequacy in regard to men — a feeling ill-disguised by defensive assertions of her "equality." She desires to possess masculinity directly, in her own person, rather than partnering with a man. That is what leads her into the spiritual cul de sac of envy.

And perhaps even more than she envies the male role itself, the feminist covets the external rewards attached to its successful performance: social status, recognition, power, wealth, and the chance to control wealth directly (rather than be supported). She tends not to give much thought to the great mass of men who struggle to fulfill the demands of their role without ever attaining the rewards of superior performance.

Let us consider next what envy is. First, it involves a painful awareness of something good or desirable in another person. This much it has in common with emulation. The emulator, however, is primarily concerned with self-improvement. Envy has a fundamentally negative character; it wants to bring the other down rather than raise itself up. The envier usually does not admit that explicitly but rather claims to have been cheated, whether by the envied party or by the surrounding society: he disguises his envy as a zeal for justice. Often he claims to want to compete on a level playing field, but maintains that competition has been "fixed."

Envy, however, is distinct from the sense of justice in being fundamentally unappeasable. The righteously indignant person genuinely wants to come to a settlement. By contrast, if the envied party grants what the envier demands, it merely further demonstrates his superiority and provokes more envy. One reason the feminists have gotten as far as they have is that many men are untroubled by envy themselves. These men cannot understand the psychology behind feminism. Sincerely caring about women and wishing to promote their welfare, they waste effort on futile attempts to reason or compromise. They imagine that limited concessions might persuade feminists that men are not really so bad after all.

But it is a metaphysical impossibility to "grant" what a feminist envies: the successful performance of the male role including risk overcome, obstacles surmounted, and objectively verifiable achievement. What the appeasers actually do is grant women some of the external appearances and rewards of such achievement. That is the meaning of corporate hiring and promotional preferences. But a little reflection will reveal why such concessions can never satisfy the feminist. She is humiliated precisely by the awareness that her advancement is an unearned act of charity on the part of the hated "patriarchy." It would be difficult to imagine, in fact, a more efficient means of stoking her frustration and resentment. (The situation with racial preferences, incidentally, is precisely analogous: thus, one book on Black beneficiaries of "affirmative action" is aptly titled The Rage of a Privileged Class.)

Indeed, concessions are perceived as signs of weakness, and whet the appetite for more concessions, a cycle that could only end with the complete self-destruction of the envied party. In other words, feminists' claim to be motivated by love of justice or fairness is flapdoodle. Feminism is a species not of righteous indignation but of hatred.

In practice, since the feminist can never be the equal of men at the male role, she concentrates her efforts upon sabotaging that role. In other words, because she cannot level up, she contents herself as best she can with leveling down. So the practical consequence of feminist political power is to make it impossible for men to "do their thing" (fulfill their role). For example, women may not be able to have careers as glamorous and successful as they imagined, but one accusation of "harassment" is all it takes to destroy the career of a man whose accomplishments she could never equal. And there is no question that many women get a sadistic pleasure from wielding such power. I myself once heard a woman boast of getting three different men fired.

A whole legal industry has mushroomed within a single generation based upon newly invented crimes and torts of which only men can be guilty and only women can be victims. Obviously, the Western tradition of high regard for women is not going to survive the spread of such behavior indefinitely. Women who wonder why men do not seem to "respect" them any more might seek the answer in the mirror.

Envy of the male role has devastating consequences for women's performance of their own proper role as well. Although it may be a secondary or supporting one in relation to men, it is indispensable for the survival of the race: the woman bears, nurtures, and to a great extent educates the rising generation. The feminist either refuses to fulfill her natural role or at best does so resentfully, sullenly, and poorly. For that reason, feminism should not be treated merely as a personal folly on the part of some misguided or spoiled women — it is a mortal threat to any society in which it truly takes hold. Enemies of heterosexual cooperation and procreation are enemies of the human race."

A few hours ago I posted a short response to Luke’s comment. It appeared as normal, but has since disappeared. Any idea what happened to it? Nothing objectionable in it — just thanking him for posting that excellent quote.

There was a story a few days ago about a court case that could seriously be to take down grave markers in the shape of crosses at veterans cemeteries. I saw an ad for AT&T wireless full of imagery that was supposed to be “edgy.” (Morbidly obese ballerina, kick ass girl HS football star). All commercials and television are basically an ode to skewering the hetero, white Christian dad.

And I am now shrugging at these things.

Not because I am OK with the stuff, I just find that the battlefield conditions have run their course. At this point, the cultural left is simply shoring up its last victories in minor skirmishes.

Mostly when I reflect on how all this will play out, I worry about my kids and the world they are inheriting. The people who say this stuff is “good” and “it gives you the chills” are like a cruel kid poking an already dying animal on the side of the road with a stick. They are bitter even in victory. They can never describe a peaceful path to their end game to me.

I ask, “what will do with dads like me? Families like mine? We have to go SOMEWHERE.”

The answer to questions like that should be the ones giving people chills.

@Cane Caldo
”I suppose mentally I just moved on from there to reflect on the fact that men put up no offense or defense against women’s onslaught, and that bugs the fire out of me. To reference one of you other great posts: I am petty enough to be angry at women’s pettiness.”

When its a vital aspect of civilization like the Patriarchal family unit or interferes with the male role in society. Then its a mortal threat to civilization and have spiritual consequences of damning many souls to hell and to treat such onslaughts as pettiness is utmost foolishness.

Infowarrior, I’m glad you found value in that. Here is another key piece, from the last page there, showing why SAHDs are probably going to be SOL as husbands (and fathers):

“…overt, prolonged role reversal is fatal to marriage. Researcher Liz Gallese thought she had finally found an example of a happy role-reversal marriage: the wife’s career was more successful than the husband’s, so he began looking after their child to let her focus on work (the economically rational thing to do). The woman seemed proud of her accomplishments and happy with the arrangement; and Gallese must have thought she had a bestseller on her hands. The reality came to light only when she began speaking to the husband. It turns out that the couple had entirely ceased having sexual relations. Armed with that new information, Gallese began probing more deeply into the wife’s sentiments. The woman eventually admitted she wanted another child, but — not by her husband.

“I absolutely refuse to sleep with that man,” she declared; “I’ll never have sex with him again.” Instead, she was now flirting with other successful businessmen. She did not divorce her husband, however; he was still too useful as a nanny for the child. [18] Such would appear to be the thanks men can expect for accommodating their wife’s career and “sharing the housework.”

Regarding Cable Guy, I notice that everyone in the audience is wearing a paper crown. Does this mean that everyone is also a king and queen? If so, there must have been, what, hundreds of thousand of queens over the past several decades? So why make a fuss about yet another queen? Does the queen on stage reign over a larger realm than the many queens in the audience?

I always hated Jim Carey. One of those hyper-annoying “comics,” like Robin Williams and Adam Sandler.

Splashman, I just did a search for your handle in the spam and trash bins. Unfortunately I didn’t find your comment. WordPress must have had a glitch. Feel free to write it again, and maybe keep a copy as a text file in case WordPress does it again.

Never a fan of him as well………RPL….however when Medieval Times was brought up……I could not resist this clip. I did see this movie in the theaters at the time. What a world. Jim Carey gave a woman an uncurable STD, she kills herself….and Mr. Sarah Jessica Parker (Ferris Beueller) should have married Sloan Peterson

Last night my friend said he was going to purchase a motor-car in Waterlooville. The conversation continued as follows:

Opus; I suppose it is named after the battle
Friend: Are you saying there was a battle at Waterlooville
Opus: No.The one at Waterloo
Friend: Where was that – not Waterloo Station, London?
Opus: Do you really not know?!?!? so where do you think?
Friend: It was at sea, right?
Opus: Try again

and so it went on – and they say Americans can be a little ignorant. lol

My biggest gripe about Medieval Times, as with Rennaissance Festivals, is the lack of true authenticity. That is, the all-pervasive filth that characterized life in that era. It’s not “medieval” without the ever-present stench of raw sewage, dead bodies, vermin, and dirt everywhere. If a “queen” wants to take ownership of such, let her do so with PRIDE.

feeriker: My biggest gripe about Medieval Times, as with Rennaissance Festivals, is the lack of true authenticity. That is, the all-pervasive filth that characterized life in that era. It’s not “medieval” without the ever-present stench of raw sewage, dead bodies, vermin, and dirt everywhere.

That calls for Monty Python and the Holy Grail‘s “Bring out your dead!” scene.

I went to Medieval Times back in the 90s. It was OK, I guess. Better than the Ripley’s or Not Museum down the street. But Knott’s Berry Farm was reduced to carnival rides by then.

The old Knott’s Berry Farm was long gone. No more Sons of the Pioneers concerts, no more berry farming, no more free zone with the Jungle Island, burro rides, lake with the ducks and boat ride, carousal, etc… Just parking lots to squash more people in to ride Carnival rides for more money with a few of the old Western trappings retained. At least they kept Independence Hall though it’s not been properly maintained, of course.

Disneyland suffered as great a deterioration. They stripped out all the Americana and reduced shows like Pirates of the Caribbean to a shell of their once former glory, removing all the real skeletons in the process. No more Indian village to visit, canoe rides to get there, and fort on Tom Sawyer’s island to shoot from the ramparts. It’s just a trampled down stripped bare asphalt boring shell of what it once was. The proud ship that used to sail was tied up so long a fitting fell down and killed someone. It’s gotten so bad they’re getting Legionnaire disease victims now. They should just shut the whole thing down imo. Whatever magic once existed there is long gone.

Last trek to Disney………October 1997. Disney was (and still is) an IBM customer. IBM sent our team down for a huge server install. We were there for a week. Yes, there is a whole complex of rooms, tunnels, large areas underneath the whole park. Well lit, maintained……..canteens for employees. Offices, reception areas……..utility and even showers and the like.

IBM out of the “kindness” of their heart after we finished gave us “one day in the park” and I will admit I had a pretty good time. My previous Disney trip was to Walt Disney World / Epcot Center in 1986……..

IBM did put us up in the Disneyland Hotel…..and I was a little surprised on how “tired” and “worn” looking it was at that time. I guess it had a facelift or two since that time.

I do want to visit Disney “one more time” but its not a priority. I have no interest in going to Medieval TImes or places like this….

To help balance out the depressing versus positive posts, I was wondering if you might be inclined to do an analysis of the 2003 film Master and Commander like you have of the crappy Christian movies. I consider Master and Commander to be one of the most underrated films ever made, and one of the best masculine stories in recent years. Watching it 15 years later, a friend and I noted how controversial it would be if it came out today because of how traditionally masculine it is.

As a frequent visitor to the local Renaissance fair (Bristol, WI) for many years, the fair transitioned a couple of decades ago from King Richard’s Faire to the more generic Bristol Renaissance Faire. Various years there would be a king or a queen (one year we had both William and Mary of Orange, I think). Didn’t seem to matter to the fair experience – England had both kings and queens during that era anyway, and the same intrigues went on under both.

So Medieval Times is making a big deal, but like Old MacDonald above, most customers won’t notice. Unless they are made to notice.

As you mentioned the Waterloo movie (which I have to confess I have never quite managed to sit through – though Steiger is a great actor of course) one Friday at the very Waterloo station I mentioned – i was returning from Law College – immediately above (or perhaps below) the sign with the station’s name was a placard advertising the very film. I cursed myself for not having a camera on me to record the coincidence. I have long thought that all of London’s other eight or nine major railway stations should be renamed after battles against the French – just to annoy French visitors.

Next time I see my friend I am going to ask him some questions about suffragism (male and female)*. I will report on what I am sure will be his dismal performance – though doubtless no worse than most peoples. Stay tuned to this channel.

* This is what I will ask

1. In which year did adult females become politically emancipated
2. In which year did all adult males gain entitlement to vote
3. What percentage of men in 1800 had the right to vote
4. What percentage of women in the year 1800 had the right to vote in local elections

“Master and Commander” is excellent, and really captures the spirit of the original novels.

(In O’Brien’s Aubrey-Maturin series, Captain Chad and Ship’s Surgeon-Spy Mssr. Asperge-Foreveralone, set sail for a series of swashbuckling adventures based, loosely, on actual Napoleonic Wars-era Royal Navy dispatches. Heavy on the traditional Hornblowery morality tale at first– “Master and Commander” centers on success and failure of leadership;– the later novels get progressively tainted with shitlibbery: any remnant morality is squished, flattened to a soupy postmodern slime directve of “tolerance.” But there’s something like thirty of them. So plenty of good stuff. The early books are great fun, once you get used to the non-stop stream of nautical jargon. Lots of exciting naval battles and ship-stealing raids. Plenty of memorable, funny characters. And, unlike today’s hyperempowered, hyperinfallible schee-wullbeh-kweenz Mary Sue wahman archetype, impious women, even sympathetic bad-girls-trying-to-be-good, can face serious personal consequences. And vice versa. Optimal for young men, enjoyable for all.)

Love her or hate her, I have a hard time imagining her donning the hijab. Respeck.

” They should just shut the whole thing down imo. Whatever magic once existed there is long gone.”

Not likely to happen, as Disneyland is usually packed to the gills and makes a lot of money for the company. They’re building a new Star Wars themed section in it. Once that is finished expect a one day ticket price to approach $200 (I believe it’s $130 now), since they can’t legally let more people in. There are many days they close the admission turnstiles midday when the park legally reaches its capacity. It’s simply insane.

My mother loved her. She used to say in her Welsh accent “She is the example of what can indeed be accomplished in post-war Britain through hard work, thrift, and living correctly…something too many Britons don’t want to do. The Scotch come to my mind.”

For Opus…..off topic my friend……..are they still making that TV series “Inspector Lewis” over in the UK? In the USA we only get to see it when our Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) decides that they need to draw in more viewers. It is shown on PBS’s “Mystery!” program which has all kinds of movie adaptations from famous mystery writers / light suspense and mild horror.

This opening segment has been used since the 1980’s but the host of late has been Diana Rigg because ol Vincent Price went to the “tomb”

The iron lady would have stood up somewhat to this influx of criminal Shire despoiling orcs who like to form criminal gangs that commit all sorts of crimes even to the point of grooming, raping, and pimping children with authorities turning a blind eye to all of it so they don’t get called “racist” and lose their public-dole jobs: but she would have still allowed it to happen!

May is worse than Thatcher but anything in Labour is exponentially worse. If these hobbits don’t figure out, before it’s too late, that they cannot turn invader orcs into hobbits then they will lose their Shire to the orcs.

All orcs should be deported from the Shire with haste and the British Constitution amended to permanently outlaw Islam explicitly stating that all Muslims, citizen or not, are to be deported to a Muslim country of the UK’s choice. Personally, I’d dump them in Syria. Bon Voyage!

It is hard for me to disagree with a word of American’s above comment. I cannot however wax as sentimental towards Margaret Thatcher’s alleged thrift hard-work and living correctly as Jason. At The Bar it is said that she was pretty mediocre as a Barrister. What I would like to have asked her was ‘What first attracted you to the millionaire Denis Thatcher?”

Hmm: As a frequent visitor to the local Renaissance fair (Bristol, WI) for many years, the fair transitioned a couple of decades ago from King Richard’s Faire to the more generic Bristol Renaissance Faire.

Wonder how long before the SJWs start complaining that “King Richard” and even “Renaissance” are too Eurocentric. Africa also had kings and queens. Why are they not honored?

That is, the all-pervasive filth that characterized life in that era. It’s not “medieval” without the ever-present stench of raw sewage, dead bodies, vermin, and dirt everywhere.

That’s quite an overstatement. Hollywood depictions notwithstanding, those traits were more typical of the post-Renaissance period of Europe than the medieval period. I’m sure it wasn’t a sterile environment, but the general consensus of the period sources generally describe functioning sewage systems, street-cleaning operations, and frequent bathing. As far as dead bodies go, the religion strongly disallowed desecration, so it would be unusual to see bodies left to rot and not given a proper burial.

The myth of the ‘disgusting, backward’ Christian West is just that, a myth.

Well maybe she was….or wasn’t. It was her timing into becoming a PM. Her legacy….hated or loved will be debated for a awhile to come. I don’t know of any famous ‘barristers’ who were not ‘medicore’ who made an impact on the world.

So the joke is on us Opus. My mother loved her. I was a teenager when her, Reagan, Kohl, Mulroney, and Nakasone were all in leadership in their repsected countries…..it was a def shift globally to the ‘center-right’ but I was more concerned about skipping third period gym in 1986

Even in the Victorian era……was reading Queen Victoria’s letters to Albert……..man did she love that guy……………..anyway, she was complaining about dreading to visit France / Spain / Italy because of the filthy latin toilets and appalling personal hyegneic habits of those peoples

I see this as part of our conversion therapy. Most men must realize that virtue signalling is worse than useless. That being polite and nice to avoid conflict at all costs means the annihilation of our spaces, our culture, and ultimately our heritage. It’s not as if these feminists are going to establish a sustainable civilization. We have to create our own spaces even if they are only a table at a diner and we have to open broken lines of communication.

Taking “Moscow” will achieve the same thing for the feminists as it did for the French. Weeks (maybe years) of celebration while eating through the last morsels of their supplies and a very slow realization that somehow they have f#$@d up.

Allow me to name two other Barristers who became Prime Minister (since WW2) Clement Attlee*, Tony Blair. Perhaps they were mediocre too, I have no idea although I do know that Tony in those was calling himself Anthony. Hmmm.

Is the West better off now than it was 40 years ago? I think not. Maybe there’s been more “wealth creation” on paper, but also a massive increase in debt. And intact, working families have been replaced by broken families on welfare and meth,

For lack of better terms, I’ve been increasingly nationalist and populist, politically speaking. Like most people here, I hate the Left, but I’ve also come to hate cucky conservatives.

Great post Red Pill Latecomer @ March 11, 2018 at 1:21 pm. I concur. And Opus I think Thatcher and Blair were patriots but due to being trad-con ideologues, stumbled badly on the very issues Red Pill Latecomer is highlighting in his post above… to the detriment of the U.K..

Sadly, tradcons (despite their penchant for moral conservatism [both real and imagined]) are still a serious liability to both countries because of their wrong ideology with respect to immigration, trade, worker-replacement-automation, oligarchy, and recently a political acceptance for sexual immorality, etc… I have two words for them: “Civilization Replacement.”

But fortunately, a lot of that has begun to change. The real question is are we in a transitional stage where our push back fails and our respective ships return to taking on water and sinking as they were before this new populist reform movement gained traction, or are we in a transformational stage in which the ship is saved and a right course set for decades and perhaps a couple of generations. I pray it’s transformational.

Opus….ah, Attlee…..I have met many Indian nationals in the Silicon Valley when I was working there and surprisingly when I lived there too (Madras, half of 1998). More tha few believed that India was better off with the Empire. Which caused me some shock. Not as in being “ruled” but the ones who felt this usually stated the following “The British Empire demanded general stability and brought it”

Wasn’t Lord Mountbatten more responsible though for the division, partition and independance????
Pardon my Yankee ignorances in these matters 🙂

Attlee and Panjit Nehru (another Barrister) were both members of my own Inn – Inner Temple – and I guess that smoothed the transition. I have always felt a certain affection for Indians (call-centre, I mean).

For lack of better terms, I’ve been increasingly nationalist and populist, politically speaking. Like most people here, I hate the Left, but I’ve also come to hate cucky conservatives.

I’ve always been full blown ethno-nationalist. Your in group preference is a natural defense mechanism, don’t let any leftist, globalist or pompous conservative tell you otherwise. No other group will give you succor in your time of need.

First time poster here: “In the past feminists could give a woman a mannish haircut, put a leather jacket on her, and have a man fly her across the Atlantic and she would be celebrated as a great feminist hero, complete with ticker tape parade and solemn meeting with the President.” Loved the inference to Amelia Earhart. The phony-baloney heroine of the Left. I still see people on the net who do not know the truth about her trans-Atlantic flight spouting off about her accomplishments. I remember reading some where that the aviatrix had arguments with her navigator which led to their getting lost on their Pacific flight. Like Alex Haley’s plagiaristic “Roots” the lefts heroes almost always turn out to be nothing but a house of lies.

“See here for an Oxford debate that went viral about whether the British were a net positive for India or not.”

^ It was a net positive. The rabid Indian nationalist’s one-sided, myopic presentation aside (as well as the infantile English leftardist applauding and squealing in rapturous delight every time Dr. I Hate Britain committed malpractice), the greatest benefit of English colonialism in India was the drawing together of subsequent fractured feuding states that resulted from the Muslim “negation of India” into a cohesive modern Democracy.

You’re wrong. You just found a source that agrees with you, and assert that as ‘a far better representation’.

On the contrary, the speaker in the Oxford debate addresses the facts with quantitative support, and is quite fair. Plus, ‘democracy’ is not necessarily a plus for any nation (India or otherwise) as any red-pill man should know. The speaker addresses why this was made for the benefit of British resource extraction, rather than for any benefit for India.

Again (for emphasis), English colonialism in India drew together fractured feuding states (that had resulted from the Muslim “negation of India”) into a powerful, cohesive, modern Democracy with the sixth-largest economy (by market exchange rates).

That, all by itself, is a net positive for India when compared to the complaints (both real and imagined) of anti-Western bigots. The Dr. should thank Britain for [i]that[/i] and tend to his nation rather than pretend it isn’t so and seek a “gibmedat” reparation from a litter of ignorant and deceived leftardists who’s elevator doesn’t go higher than the first floor.

American, whatever India is, it’s not “us”. Their inefficiencies and level of corruption that reaches the bone would make them horrid allies. Those also make them vampiric in commerce (“intellectual property rights are a Western concept”). Their individuals as immigrants are inassimilable and largely frauds and thieves of one sort or another. Remember how one of Ayn Rand’s character’s in “Atlas Shrugged” answer was asked by a looter the latter asked this productive man what he could receive from the looters he could actually want? The answer was that the corrupt nonproductive have nothing whatsoever to offer the honest productive.

Did you know Great Britain still provides foreign Aid to India – some might call that Tribute. I call it a waste of money and I am prejudiced as my Great Great Uncle was wounded at Lucknow – but for his gallantry beyond the call of sanity – people do things in the spur of the moment – won the V.C.though for his actions – and married the nurse who brought him back to health.

“The greatest impact of British policies was the drain of wealth from India. ”
“While British goods were exempted from duties while entering Indian markets, Indian goods entering England were burdened with heavy customs duties. Thus, the self-sufficient economy of India collapsed under the impact of British colonial policies.”

England saved India from the you-know-whoms. All England wanted was a little trade and a cup of Darjeeling. It is at this point had I the skill I would link to Life of Brian: what did the British ever do for us, apart from the bridges, the roads, the railways, the hospitals, medicine, education, sanitation, law and order etc etc – yes but apart from that what did the British ever do for India. Brought Peace. ROFL

That is pretty much when I was a scholar what we were taught in school – though of course India was just one tiny part of the Pax Britannica, and got little mention as we had given it away in some kind of liquidation sale. The British Empire: the largest (and I would say by a long chalk) the bestest empire the world has ever known or will know. Where would India be without the Morris Oxford – answer that!!!

I stopped trying to post links on Dalrock’s site after several posts disappeared into moderation.
Nonetheless, putting these words into Google Images gives revealing results:
india testing climbing building fraud

Do go to the articles the photos are about.

They all have to leave. (Home is for the early ones.)

Oh, and I have worked closely over the years with not one, not two, but three Indian (call center not casino) Indians, as a fellow scientist. All three were well-spoken to the point of glibness, variable but unimpressive WRT competence, and universally utterly without internal moral compass. Gain by any means vs. the odds of being caught and resulting consequences was their sole MO.

There are few things on which I ever disagree with Anon and his insight strikes me as razor-sharp – I can only envy. There is however one matter on which I detect a certain Janus-faced contradiction: as can above be seen Anon speaks highly of Indians in America and appears to have a somewhat open-borders attitude to Indian emmigration, yet a mere thirty thousand Britain’s in the Indian sub–continent is not something he entirely approves of. Anon to my mind fails The Cricket Test but having two feet in one country and ones heart in another is perhaps the being of a servant of two masters.

Indians are racist assholes that only hire and do business with other racist Indian assholes. Here, they get away with it because racist Indian assholes can’t be racist because: Color. It’s ok, Blacks and White feminists that foist all this racist horseshit on all of us, they don’t get hired by racist Indian assholes and so are left off the fraudulent gravy trains racist, crooked Indian assholes usually get caught in.

Except that it doesn’t undermine my point for the simple fact that the foundation for India (sans-Pakistan) to become what they are today, rather than return to backward feuding states dominated by Muslims, was laid by the English.

Perhaps you and Dr. I Hate Britain can commensurate over that at a pub. Order something other than the I can’t see the forest because of some trees and leave off the cherry picking quote mining garnish.

On another now defunct blog the SJW’s thereon blamed England for the post 1947 partition violence and at the same time (same comment) blamed England for not-separating the Hutsi’s and Tutsi’s in sub-Saharan Africa. This struck me as akin to the Feminist mode of reasoning that is to say the reasoning of an upset child.

I expect they also blame Israeli Palestinian trouble on England, Balfour going in one direction, T.E.Lawrence in another. As for Ireland , North America (those violent Canuckians) and partitioning post 1815 Belgium from France. Does it never end!!!!!

It’s been awhile since I was at a Medieval Times. My memory is that the food wasn’t very and the show not much better. Mostly what I recall is that the “medieval music” was actually from Carmina Burana by Carl Orff. Which is indeed medieval-themed, even if it’s not exactly medieval (it was written in 1937).

Of course, you wouldn’t expect a real medieval tournament, because such things were dangerous and the contestants could and sometimes did suffer very real injuries. And you wouldn’t expect real history, because medievals tended to be kinda rough-and-ready sorts, and narratives have replaced history anyway, and how many know much of anything about the real Medieval Times? Other than Crusaders were evil and Muslim defenders heroic, of course.

So, Medieval Times is a show. It still has a way to go before it disappears into Disney Princess-Warrior Land, although it may well be its final destination.

I will reply to Opus as one comment, as his topic is that of the British Empire. The others who just inject their clumsy, generalized, 70-IQ Nationalist-Leftist tripe will be handled separately.

Opus,

Remember that the whole point is that the British public is not taught the truth. This is the point of the speaker in the video. Even beyond India, you have been taught an inaccurate view of the British Empire. This is why you also think :

i) Britain has never lost a war (I can think of at least four off the top of my head).
ii) America only wins wars when Britain is there to hold America’s hand.
iii) America is worse off from having gotten independence from Britain.

All three of these deeply-held beliefs are demonstrably false. In fact, America’s methods are far more effective than Britain’s, given how the Treaty of Versailles only led to German resentment and WW2, while the US approach after that led to permanent peace. Plus, while Britain strip-mined its colonies of resources, the US created win-win situations (such as buying oil from Persian Gulf states as market prices, where the British Empire would have simply taken it by force).

Britain has a lot to learn from the US.

Regarding India, your beliefs are false, because you just haven’t been taught the truth. The drain of wealth from India by Britain is the largest wealth-theft of all time. See the video in the link to learn the facts. Britain did not ‘save’ India from Muslims; the Mughal empire operated for 300 years before the British, and Queen Elizabeth wrote letters of admiration to Emperor Akbar. Furthermore, Pakistan is the creation of Britain, which is why as much as I disapprove of radical Islam, the problems Britain is having with Pakistanis today is very much their own doing.

It is important to note that Britain might very well have lost WW1 if not for India (a fact that France openly recognizes and expresses gratitude for). WW2 is a different matter as the US was involved in rescuing Britain early, and India was more non-cooperative with Britain due to Gandhi’s ascencion.

You claim :

what did the British ever do for us, apart from the bridges, the roads, the railways, the hospitals, medicine, education, sanitation, law and order etc etc – yes but apart from that what did the British ever do for India. Brought Peace.

Again, false. The video I linked above debunks all of these claims with solid data. Remember that you are not taught the facts in schools, which is why you are not aware of the facts. The link that American helpfully posted also points out the wealth drainage that Britain engineered from India.

Indians are racist assholes that only hire and do business with other racist Indian assholes.

If this were true, than companies with Indian CEOs (Google, Microsoft, Pepsi, MasterCard, NetApp, Adobe, Sandisk, and formerly CitiGroup and US Airways) would no longer have any non-Indian employees. This is obviously not the case.

A person of normal intelligence would be embarrassed to say something that can be debunked so easily, but you obviously have no such qualms. Your screeching rage aside, it is far more likely that your difficulties are because you are a poor performer, and thus cannot compete.

That is right. The preferred candidate for Nationalist-Leftists was Bernie Sanders. Only after Bernie failed to get past the primaries did they settle for their second choice of Trump. Since Trump is obviously not a Nationalist-Leftist (and will never opposed skilled immigration), the Nationalist-Leftists are screeching like the feminists they are yet again.

Race-nationalism (of any race) is always a left-wing, feminist ideology.

I believe that I am indebted to Anon for the refresher as to what I was taught at school and perhaps I was not paying proper attention at the time – daydreaming as usual – but I have to say I have no recollection of being told we never lost a war – we lost to the Romans to begin with, Hastings in 1066 and then there was the unfortunate matter of our American colonies and New Orleans in 1814 the song about it once being popular; have no recollection of being told that America only wins wars when Britain is able to help out although we passed on Viet-nam which was in the French sphere of influence and I don’t think that went all that well for America and so confusion is there possible; America is worse for having revolted and gone its own way – this is certainly news to me as the British are insanely envious of America and all its consumer goods and most Britons see American Independence as as natural as say Female Suffrage.

I am intrigued by Anon’s suggestion that Nationalism is left-wing. I believe I would grasp how that might be reasoned but Nationalists are always referred to as of the far far right which is usually spelt N-A-Z-I-. This very week the Lady Home Secretary has barred three American’s of the Alt-Right from entering into England – doesn’t want our returning ISIS mercenaries to get upset, you see. England is in the minds of our elite Utopia and must stay that way, no matter.

The best, the absolute best client I ever had was Indian. A dream of a client that I can only wish all my other clients had been like him. The perfect client, save for one as far as I am concerned minor problem., He did not pay, Business went bust and he disappeared presumably back to the Indian undergrowth as a soldier of fortune where if you have a problem if you can find him then you too may hire the…..

It is true we are taught that we have never (since 1066) been successfully invaded. We never lose a battle because when we do lose we pretend that that was what we wanted all along – say 1776 – and of course we never lose to the French. Dunkirk was humiliating and any other country would call that a loss but because of the tender-hearted German Reichs-Chancellor who allowed us to escape as you can see from the famous movie repackaged as an opportunity to line-up [spelt Q-U-E-U-E] and wait for some very small boats to arrive supported by just three Supermarine Spitfire Mark 1s we now count that on the credit side. I can see how these confusions might arise.

Much like this abortive conversation, dealing with non-Westerners, as a naive Westerner, in nearly any attempted collaborative capacity, is quite the red-suppository.

You: “Can you do this?”
H0B: “Yes.”
[nothing]
You: “This really needs to be done. Can you do this?”
H0B: “Yes.”
[fails to act, covers ass]
You: “No, really, it’s critical, can you do this right now?”
H0B: “Yes, affendi.”
[belatedly does the opposite, fails, incoherently blames you]
You: “What the fuc…!!!”
[layoffs, work outsourced to a team comprising thirty of H0B’s cousins from his ancestral village, err… well-vetted “expert consultants”]
Sandi, VP of Wealth Transfer, Leaning In and Pink Gynobeanies: “Welcome to America diverse genius consultants of H0Bkin Global, LTD, Madras! Please join me in my contempt for the deplorables you replaced. By the way, I am truly, very sorry to microaggress you today, but we seem to be having some serious issues with our systems, can you do this?”
30-H0B chorus: “Yes, mem-sahib.”

In actuality, the current situation is much worse:

(lol at the vegana honeypot)

As a woke Bolshefascist BernieBro-KAG Deplorable Crisis Actor with )))Globo(((-(((nationalist))) sympathies, and in the interest of furthering multicultural amity, I demand that every one of you fellow hateful redneck bastards be quiet, forgo your next assaultmusket purchase, reach into your tattered camo-colored wallets, and cough up for all-inclusive, decade-long cultural exchange opportunities for our betters. Next year’s destination: Lesotho.

Race-nationalism (of any race) is always a left-wing, feminist ideology.

Suggesting that the God of Genesis 11:6-9 is a feminist commie? Or, was He just manipulating man’s inherent feminist commie instincts? Which makes me wonder when He suggested that His intention was to create man in His image.

Don’t you see how lame that sounds? Blacks are considered whiny ne’er do wells for a reason, as race-victim identity politics always attracts only the losers. That is why WNs tend to be bottom-20% omega males.

Not to mention that race-based ideologies have a huge overlap with feminism (as many have pointed out), which is why race-nationalists tend to be manginas.

That’s why I am fully for all Apartheid based segregation. Whites should protect themselves, they need to get over their silly altruism.

Your shaming is phony. All of the ‘right wing’ ideals only work if your group of people are still here to enjoy them. In the end, your survival depends on the people closest to your likeness. It’s always been a balance between your individual wants and your group’s need.

That’s what Western Civilsation got right before it went overboard and straight into apologising for merely existing. I don’t apologize for such things. You spend your time whiny about what humans have done for all their existence. Tribalism. It’s only in the modern world where ‘racism’ is considered to be a great crime, one worthy of being genocided out of existence for because it’s too hard to protect ones group without offending the other.

At this point though, I hardly care. Being shamed for not wanting to enter the marriage arena is much the same as being shamed for nothing wanting to sing Kumbaya whilst my Nation gets destroyed.

It is true we are taught that we have never (since 1066) been successfully invaded. We never lose a battle because when we do lose we pretend that that was what we wanted all along – say 1776 – and of course we never lose to the French. Dunkirk was humiliating and any other country would call that a loss but because of the tender-hearted German Reichs-Chancellor who allowed us to escape as you can see from the famous movie repackaged as an opportunity to line-up [spelt Q-U-E-U-E] and wait for some very small boats to arrive supported by just three Supermarine Spitfire Mark 1s we now count that on the credit side. I can see how these confusions might arise.

Okay, I laughed! However, you did forget the first Boer war and the first six months of the second Boer war.

My dear Feministhater, you must have seen or at least heard of the movie Zulu in which half a dozen squaddies under Michael Caine in a particularly fetching uniform beat off half a million javelin-throwing natives. Don’t tell me that that does not count as a win.

If this were true, than companies with Indian CEOs (Google, Microsoft, Pepsi, MasterCard, NetApp, Adobe, Sandisk, and formerly CitiGroup and US Airways) would no longer have any non-Indian employees. This is obviously not the case.

Only because these companies’ Boards of Directors are overwhelmingly non-Indian is this the case. In cases where (very nearly) the entire corporate leadership consists of Subcontinentals, business is done EXACTLY as Jim describes. Anyone who has spent any length of time employed in the tech sector can readily attest to this.

Britain was the best thing that ever happened to India. They’d still be feuding backward pagan savages torching their widows when not being enslaved and murdered en masse by Muslim invaders (who murdered up to 80 million Hindus between 1000 [conquest of Afghanistan] and 1525 [end of Delhi Sultanate]).

“The greatest impact of British policies was the drain of wealth from India. ”
“While British goods were exempted from duties while entering Indian markets, Indian goods entering England were burdened with heavy customs duties. Thus, the self-sufficient economy of India collapsed under the impact of British colonial policies.”

So even your own link (which you obviously did not read) refutes your hyper-simplified beliefs. The fact remains that India went from 25% of World GDP when Britain arrived to 4% when the British depradations stopped.

Other things you are wrong about : the Delhi Sultanate ended in 1525, while British colonization only started in 1757 (232 years later) and took control of all of India only by 1857. Islamic radicalization of a portion of India (which became Pakistan) was in fact engineered by Britain. That is why it is ironic that Britain is getting the blowback of this to this day.

Again, the video I linked above refutes all the petty claims of ‘railways’ and ‘foreign aid’. You can’t dismiss that just because you don’t like the well-proven facts. Your own link agrees rather well with the video.

Among other things, the British Empire would have lost WW1 if not for India (a fact which France and Australia are both happy to point out to this day).

Well that is certainly a new one on me: I thought the occasional view was that without The United States of America we would have lost WW1 or at least not prevailed against the axis powers. Pretty much the same as WW2. We have a number of American bases in England and this is surely proof that rather than lose in 1776, we must have won because America is and has been working for us ever since.

I thought the occasional view was that without The United States of America we would have lost WW1 or at least not prevailed against the axis powers.

That was certainly true of WW2 (and the Cold War). Britain survived both because of America.

That is less true for WW1 since America’s entry was late, it was less powerful at that time, and India provided 17% of British empire troops and over 30% of British Empire supplies (metals, pack animals, uniforms, food supplies, etc.).

The US should never have been involved in WWI and should have let Hitler and Stalin beat each other senseless in WWII. The world is worse off because of both involvements, in spite of the good things that came up.

We had tickets to this that we finally got around to using. The Queen has not merely replaced the King, she has also come with a huge set of feminist tropes.

The play involves a queen, some advisors, and knights competing in activities that culminates in the knight fighting. Throughout the queen and advisors make commentary and direct the events.

One of the advisors noticing all the great knights comments that she might find a husband. But no dice – she declares basically that she is a strong independent queen who will not be slowed down by some husband. Of course the queen hunts and is an expert hunter and watching the falconer wants to get away from the activities to enjoy the hunt.

The basic structure of the play is that there is a tournament of knights and the games are for good sport. The “villain” tries to fight to the death and he is admonished that this is unacceptable. However this crime is not the biggest sin. Later after a different fight, the queen and advisors go apoplectic when the villain claims the queen, being a woman and not having fought in wars, is unfit to pass judgement on the knights skill or the morality of their actions. The structure of the play is that this moment is when the crowd is supposed to completely turn on the villain. Murder in friendly games – not good but ok. Attack feminism? Burn him at the stake. The crowd is supposed as to join in shaming the villain with boos for this high crime.

The villain having committed the unforgivable sin gets his comeuppance from one of the other knights in combat.

All the while for the crowd a big part of the experience is girls from 8 to 80 yelling at the hunky knights to recognize them and throw a flower or bow to the girls. We get the best of the feminist world – the queen holy and beyond reproach while the real women in the crowd yelling for a flower from the knights while their husbands look and (and probably cheer for them to get the flower).

As an evening – my boys would have loved it. Lots of fun to watch, social perspective consistent with modern era, and the food was terrible.

Opus (March 19, 2018)
————————————————————————————
* This is what I will ask

1. In which year did adult females become politically emancipated
2. In which year did all adult males gain entitlement to vote
3. What percentage of men in 1800 had the right to vote
4. What percentage of women in the year 1800 had the right to vote in local elections

The answers by the way are 1. 1918 2.1918 3, 2% 4 100%
————————————————————————————–
In answer to your 4 questions

1. Do you mean when was the Universal Parliamentary Franchise extended to women. The correct answer is with the RoTP Act (1928). However, propertied/land owning women were voting for Parliament (in England) under what was called the Forty-Shilling Freehold (or Franchise) of 1340. Female Parliamentary franchise was explicitly revoked with the 1832 Refiorm Act – which swept away the old ‘Rotten Borough’ system. The Parliamentary Franchise for wealthy women over 30 was restored in 1918. With regard to local elections (see 4. below)

2. Universal male Parliamentary Franchise (over 21) was granted in 1918 – including males 19 or over who had fought in the war (WW1). The reduction to 18 years old was in 1970 (1969 Act)

3. .2% sounds about right – but, a small number iof women were also voting (often using proxy’s to actually cast the vote)

4. As of 1800, there were very few ‘local authorties’ as we actually know them today. There were parishes (based on Church lines) formed into Counties (or shires) with no centralised governance other than the feudal ‘Baron’ (later replaced by appointed Lord-Lieutenants) who held the land from the king and dispensed central policy at a a local level,. Various Royal Chareters etc gave local areas some degree of autonomy and privileges, however, it was not consisent or universal. There were no councils, no political process and no elections. It was the 1832 Reform Act that diverted the drift away from locally-run oligarchies to a semblance of a system we see today. The 1835 Municipal Corporations Act reformed many of the old Borough andpaved the way for local Boards of Health, Poor Law Unions and Boards of Guardians.

In 1869, the Municpal Franchise Act confirmed that single women (who paid rates) were eligible to vote for local authorities in the newly established electoral system – confirmed by the 1894 Local Government Act (which standardised .the provision of services throughout England) and saw the emergence of Local Authorities as we know them today